Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
I think I eloquently stated my position, and I believe my goal is compatible with yours.
I agree completely. You elequantly confirmed that you don't understand the problem. You eloquently described your *fear* of the pollution of the avalon namespace. You eloquently described you *uncertainty* as to technical applicability, and you eloquently described your *doubt* with respect to utility. This is common referred to *FUD*.
Is this how you define "working with others"? I put forth my concerns in
as simple and unconfrontational method as I could. I would appreciate it
if you would return the favor. I would also appreciate it if you would
meet halfway on this which you seem to be unable to do, and cannot express
why.
Berin - I asked a simple question addressing the technical issues that you had. You replied with an that confirmed that in fact you have no technical issues. Instead you presented the basis of your agreement for the modification to avalon-meta package on the grounds of fears, uncertainties and doubts. I would appreciate it if you could go back to the technical issues - i.e. actually raise a technical issue support you position. That at least would provide grounds for some sort of collaboration.
I have objected to you proposal, siting the technical inconsitency you creating between the object model and the tag model. I have also stated that this has import ramifications. I consider my rejection of your attempt at coersion equivelent to a veto against your attempts to change the codebase in a manner that I consider techincally detrimental.
The only person who is making a Merlin release a big deal is yourself.
Pete Royal just negated your assertion.
I would not say that.
Peter is not making a big deal of of the the release subject. He expressed a concern - a concern that is completely valid. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=105949900927447&w=2 I have replied to Pete message including some thoughts on the subject. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=105949993028565&w=2
You commenced the process by stating that you would block a release unless it fulfilled you preconditions. This statement was grossly misleading simply because you do not have that authority. It is this majority of committers in this community of which you are only one that carry the decision on a release. Secondly, you have argued your FUD agenda using every possible avenue including threats of my dismissal from Avalon. We are not 90% on anything. I moved what is a complete, working and stable sub-system out of Merlin and into sandbox to facilitate collaboration on establishing a common platform. A lot of time has been spent addressing many aspects bringing in in-line. During that process you have launched what can only be described as an attack against me on the subject of extensions. And yet your rationalization comes down to nothing more than FUD arrising from you self proclaimed lack of knowledge. Once you actually take the time to address the technical issues - there will be the potential to reach 100%. In the meantime you have a lot of credibility that you need to recover.
Did I EVER threaten to dismiss you from Avalon? Please point out the exact message, complete with a link. What you have just done is defined as either slander or libel depending on how you interpret emails (written or spoken word). It is a serious allegation, and without PROOF which is your burden, I demand and appology.
Lets take into consideration the following the following context that you established yesterday.
Berin Loritsch wrote to PMC:
Stephen, it is this anti cooperative spirit that is causing most of the problems. We can continue the discussion of you refusing to cooperate on the PMC list. For now, the vote stands, and any publicly released Avalon technology *will* be bound by its outcome. I advise you to vote.
If you refuse to abide by the decisions of the Avalon team, then I highly recommend you reevaluate that position.
In a following email on the same day, you clarified your position.
Berin Loritsch wrote to PMC:
This will hopefully be my last hard-line message, but I want it to
be very
clear that the tail will not wag the dog. Either learn to work
with everyone
else, and RESPECT THEIR DECISIONS, or leave.
What exactly should I conclude from this. You are telling me that I must accept your attempt to coerce a decision supporting your idea of a what a product should be when you have not contributed to that product (beyond the addition of some test cases). You require that I accept the outcome of that decision, even though the process is for decision making is questionable and your own knowledge on the subject (you yourself said) is insufficient. Irrespective of this, you present me with an ultimatum - either I respect the outcome or I leave.
My interpretation of these remarks are that if I do not accept your attempts at coercion (as opposed to following the Jakarta guidelines and respecting the rights of contributors and policy concerning product releases), then I presumably will be forced to leave. If have misunderstood the implications and ultimatums that you have put to me, then I humbly apologize.
In the meantime, I will seeking formal clarification of my rights as a Apache committer to protect by veto changes to a product which are in my opinion detrimental.
I also expect you to come to grips with reality. Take a break if you have to.
All a user needs to know is that if they implement the set of Avalon tags, their
component will work accross all the containers.
Look - you said it here "All a user needs to know is that if they implement the set of Avalon tags" and yet you want to fragment that same namespace in such a way that users of will be obliged to use Avalon tags plus Lifecycle tags. This is simply indicative of the problem you are creating. Your statement reflects the impact of your suggestion - disenfranchising a core subset of a object model simply because you do not understand it.
?! Come again? I don't understand your logic here.
Please take a deep breath - go for a walk around the block - come back, sit down and reead this carefully.
Your words: -----------
* "All a user needs to know is that if they implement the set of Avalon tags".
Logical interpritation: -----------------------
* "All a user needs to to is implement @avalon"
Result: -------
* notions of extension management will be sidelined * attempts at reconsiling container differences will be made more difficult * Merlin development and users will be prejudiced.
Rational: ---------
* fear of poluting the namespace * uncertainty with respect to applicabilty * doubt concerning utility
Solution: ---------
* don't attempt this now - there clearly isn't concensus * take some time to understand the implications and the consequences * revist the subject when we have greater user and developer experience
On one hand you imply support for the meta-info model as it is - with full support for stage and extension declaration. On the other hand you claim that these features are not needed, unsupported, and you even go so far to imply that related products are not released. In the context of all of this - I have zero confidence that you will not continue this process of disruption and fragmentation into the tools and the meta-info API.
?! Come again? I never suggested full support for the stage and extension
declaration. I suggested support for it as a starting point--that is all.
I also never said that the features were not needed, but I did correct your
assertions.
What level of confidence can I have in you persistence on this subject? Do you intend to remove or re-package and non-core, the stage and extension defintions from the meta-info model type defintion? If yes - then we can stop this discussion right here. If no - they you need to explain why you are determined to break apart that model at the level of tag declarations.
Let's start with what we know. We can add in what we don't over time.
I suggest we move @avalon.meta -or @merlin - we maintain integrity of the model. And you can sleep at night in the knowledge that your Avalon namespace is clean. In the meantime some up who are much more interested in putting together a complete and integral solution can get on with the things we like doing.
Why are you posturing? There is no need.
Please Berin - ths is not posturing. It is being pragmatic. You are creating obsticle after obsticle. You are suggesting more preconditions on a Merlin a release. You are now suggesting that a Merlin release could occur after release Avalon-Meta, after incorporating that into Fortress and incorporating this into Phoneix. This is completely unrealistic, totally inconsitent with procedures, and completely dissassociated with volontary open-souce collaboration.
If we release the general Meta Info library with the set of Avalon tags we have
agreed to up to this point,
We haven’t agreed anything of substance. We have an AMTAGS proposal that does not meet requirements. We have you attempt to force a decision from a position of ignorance that not only is biased against the Merlin platform, but will itself lead to fragmentation and confusion.
The ONLY thing we have not agreed to is the extension/stage tags. That is
it. Everything else is ok. So are you saying that unless extension/stage
are included in the Avalon namespace that we haven't agreed to anything of
substance?
Why respond to kind words with harsh?
Has it occured to you as a result of you sustained assult on a product that you don't understand, that I can only assume that after you get what you want - you will not leave it at that. No. I can only assume that you intend to continue the attack of the notion of extensions such that you will continue until you isolate this notion to the Merlin platform.
then after we incorporate it into Fortress and Phoenix, I have no issues with a Merlin release.
More preconditions? Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and stop this ridiculous process of preconditioning. While you’re at it - could you pull back on the FUD and drop the threats. In the meantime I'm going back to things that are fun and interesting. In particular, I will continue to move Merlin forward with the support of the user community as a complete and viable solution.
How about one more. Unless you stop your own FUD marketing and threats no Merlin technology can be released in any way shape or form.
As a committer within Avalon - this is not your decision. As a member of the PMC - this is not you decision. As chairman of the PMC you could set a precedent and override the decision of a community.
As long as you continue to attack those trying to work with you and refuse to work
with anyone else (including me) I definitely cannot support its release.
It's that simple.
I am not trying to attack you. I am protecting the integrity of the Merlin product and the interests of Merlin users. I am trying to hold together something that is complete. I am trying to prevent your introduction of fractures to an object model arising out of you lack of understanding. Finally, I am questioning the validity of the process you are using to coerce this community into a decision that would conflict with my rights as an Apache committer.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
